The parties, both Swedish nationals had been habitually resident in England for fifteen years. They had properties in both countries. They disputed the proper forum to resolve their divorce.
Held: Referring to the Regulation, Holman J said: ‘The Article does not say that a court is seised when the document has been lodged and the applicant has effected (or taken a required step to effect) service. It says that the court is seised when the document is lodged, subject to the proviso (which may only be assessed from some later perspective of hindsight) that there has not been a subsequent failure to take the required steps.’
Judges:
Holman J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1843 (Fam)
Links:
Statutes:
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November, 2003
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thum v Thum FC 21-Oct-2016
No abuse of process in service error
The husband claimed that the W was guilty of abuse of process by issuing the divorce petion, but then not serving it for many months in an attempt to gain a tactical jurisdictional advantage under Brussels II.
Held: H’s application was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, European
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.421093